Communicated on 8 January 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 52482/10 Ramiz ASGAROV against Azerbaijan lodged on 3 September 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ramiz Asgarov , is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1948 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr I. Aliyev, a lawyer practising in Absheron .

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant owned a business property complex comprising an abattoir and a meat-processing facility (“the processing facility”) in Sumgayit . He had privatised the processing facility and had a certificate of ownership of it.

On 19 December 1997 Presidential Decree No. 659 on the sale of plots of land on which privatised entities were sited was adopted. According to the decree, the owners of privatised entities had a priority right to purchase and privatise the plots of land on which their entities were sited.

On 3 July 2007 the applicant applied to the State Committee on Management of State Property (“the SCMSP”) for privatisation of the plot of land on which the processing facility was sited.

On 13 July 2007 the SCMSP replied, stating that the applicant would be provided with additional information once the documents submitted by him had been subjected to an expert opinion in accordance with the law.

On 3 August 2007 the applicant lodged a claim with the Khatai District Court against the SCMSP, arguing that such a requirement was unlawful.

On 13 July 2008 the Khatai District Court dismissed the claim, finding that the applicant had failed to prove that his documents had been subjected to an expert opinion.

The judgment was upheld on 4 November 2009 by the Baku Court of Appeal and on 5 March 2010 by the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, on 19 May 2009 the SCMSP was restructured and became the State Committee on Property Issues (“the SCPI”).

On an unspecified date in 2011 the applicant applied to the SCPI for privatisation of the plot of land on which the processing facility was sited.

On 4 April 2011 the SCPI refused the application on the grounds that the applicant had constructed some new buildings in addition to the already existing processing facility on the respective plot of land and did not have legal title to them.

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a claim with the Sumgayit Administrative-Economic Court against the SCPI, arguing that the construction of such additional buildings was not a lawful ground for refusing the privatisation.

On 4 December 2012 the Sumgayit Administrative-Economic Court dismissed the claim, finding that the SCPI ’ s refusal had been lawful.

The judgment was upheld on 8 May 2014 by the Sumgayit Court of Appeal and on 5 August 2014 by the Supreme Court.

On 8 August 2014 the applicant ’ s lawyer, Mr I. Aliyev was arrested on charges of tax evasion, illegal entrepreneurship and abuse of authority. During a search of his office, a number of documents were seized by the State authorities, including all the case files relating to applications before the Court that were in the possession of Mr I. Aliyev, as a representative . On 25 October 2014 some of the seized documents were returned to Javad Javadov , Mr. I. Aliyev ’ s counsel.

By a fax dated 28 August 2014, Mr I. Aliyev informed the Court of the seizure of the case files, claiming a breach of Article 34 of the Convention in respect of all the applications affected. In his letters sent to the Court in September 2014, Mr I. Aliyev reiterated the complaint concerning the seizure of the case files.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the refusals by the SCPI (formerly the SCMSP) of his applications for privatisation of the plot of land on which his processing facility was sited.

2. The applicant further complains that by seizing his case file from Mr I. Aliyev ’ s office in August 2014, the State had hindered the effective exercise of his right of application under Article 34 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the m eaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference subject to the conditions provided for by law and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest?

Were the refusals by the SCPI (formerly the SCMSP) of the applicant ’ s applications for privatisation of the plot of land on which his meat-processing facility was sited lawful? What was the law applicable to such applications, their processing and refusals? What was the legal basis of the requirement for an expert opinion of the documents submitted by the applicant? What was the legal basis for the rejection of the application for privatisation on the grounds that new buildings had been constructed without the applicant having legal title to them?

2. In view of the seizure of the applicant ’ s case file from Mr I. Aliyev ’ s office on 8 and 9 August 2014, has the State hindered the effective exercise of the applicant ’ s right of application under Article 34 of the Convention.